Rationalizations are used in attempt to legitimize questionable acts.[1] When it comes to socially undesirable acts such as corruption, rationalization seeks to alter the meanings of those acts in order to preserve salutary social identity.[2] The concept explains why unethical acts may be committed by people who consider themselves morally upright.[3] Together with socialisation and institutionalization of corruption, rationalization causes normalization of corruption within an organization.[4]
The three pillars of normalization.Reference: (Ashforth & Anand 2008).
There are at least eight types of rationalizations; legality (stating that the act is not actually illegal), denial of responsibility, denial of injury (claiming that no one was hurt in the process), denial of victim (e.g. arguing that the victim deserved their fate), social weighting (ignoring the values and beliefs of others), appeal to higher loyalties (e.g. prioritizing group loyalty over moral values), metaphor of the ledger (claiming that stolen property was implicitly earned) and refocusing attention (emphasizing good deeds over bad ones).[5]
Anti-Corruption and CSR
Self-deception is a common phenomenon in corrupt organizations, where it is often supported by processes and scripts in the working environment.[6] Studies have proven that written codes of conduct or codes of ethics are an effective way of battling cultures of corruption and bribery in organizations.[7] However, strong top-management with a systematic and thorough approach is required in order to actually implement written codes.[8]
The Honda Case
In the case widely known as "The Honda Scandal", American Honda dealers paid company executives during the 1980's and early 90's more than $15 million in bribes to get extra allotments of popular car models. During that period of time, the case was considered the biggest commercial bribery case in U.S. history. As a result, two dozen Honda dealers and executives were prosecuted. In court, the defense tried to rationalize the actions by stating that informal payments was an accepted practice in the company in order to keep salaries low.[9]
^ Zyglidopoulos, S. C., Fleming P. J., Rothenberg S. (2008). Rationalization, Overcompensation and the Escalation of Corruption in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics.
Zyglidopoulos, S. C., Fleming P. J., Rothenberg S. (2008). Rationalization, Overcompensation and the Escalation of Corruption in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics.
Definition
Table of Contents
There are at least eight types of rationalizations; legality (stating that the act is not actually illegal), denial of responsibility, denial of injury (claiming that no one was hurt in the process), denial of victim (e.g. arguing that the victim deserved their fate), social weighting (ignoring the values and beliefs of others), appeal to higher loyalties (e.g. prioritizing group loyalty over moral values), metaphor of the ledger (claiming that stolen property was implicitly earned) and refocusing attention (emphasizing good deeds over bad ones).[5]
Anti-Corruption and CSR
Self-deception is a common phenomenon in corrupt organizations, where it is often supported by processes and scripts in the working environment.[6]Studies have proven that written codes of conduct or codes of ethics are an effective way of battling cultures of corruption and bribery in organizations.[7] However, strong top-management with a systematic and thorough approach is required in order to actually implement written codes.[8]
The Honda Case
In the case widely known as "The Honda Scandal", American Honda dealers paid company executives during the 1980's and early 90's more than $15 million in bribes to get extra allotments of popular car models. During that period of time, the case was considered the biggest commercial bribery case in U.S. history. As a result, two dozen Honda dealers and executives were prosecuted. In court, the defense tried to rationalize the actions by stating that informal payments was an accepted practice in the company in order to keep salaries low.[9]Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 25, 1-52.
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 25, 1-52.
Ashforth, B. E., & Anand, V. (2003). The normalization of corruption in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 25, 1-52.
Zyglidopoulos, S. C., Fleming P. J., Rothenberg S. (2008). Rationalization, Overcompensation and the Escalation of Corruption in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics.
McKinney, J. A., & Moore, C. W. (2008). International bribery: Does a written code of ethics make a difference in perceptions of business professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(1-2), 103-111.
Johnsen, D. B. (2009). The ethics of “commercial bribery”: Integrative social contract theory meets transaction cost economics. Journal of business ethics, 88(4), 791-803.